Is there a crackdown on speculative posts?

[Evo]

Questions or misconceptions about mainstream science can be discussed in a scientific or academic forum as there is merit in discussing and pointing out errors. I don't know if we want to be discussing topics which have no scientific basis in a mainstream section of the forum, that would be more appropriate in the Skepticism and Debunking forum.

 

[Danger]

For now, I've left "mainstream" as the term, but based on the above point, it probably needs to be replaced with a more accurate term for what we're trying to do here. Suggestions anyone?

Rational maybe, although that's a pretty subjective term?

 

[Nereid]

Thanks to all who responded to my post, and an especially big thanks to Moonbear - as I may not have said this elsewhere, I think you make great contributions to the success of this site, and your selfless devotion of time and energy is much appreciated. That you are obviously enjoying yourself and having fun at the same time is even more wonderful!

If chronon or Arctic Fox are still reading this thread, would you mind contributing your thoughts? To repeat; I'm not asking what you think PF should be all about, merely that IF my characterisation of our mission is more or on target, how - in your view - should we write the guidelines (etc)?

And to my favourite fans of the non-mainstream - Garth, Andre, turbo-1, yogi, and Bystander - what say you?

 

[Moonbear]

I think that a mission statement should distinguish clearly between simple discussion of non-mainstream theories and advocacy or promotion of them. For example, I think it should be appropriate to discuss aether theories in connection with the historical or logical foundations of relativity, but not appropriate for someone to proclaim, "no, relativity is wrong, and this ether theory is really correct!"

Similarly for topics such as "intelligent design".

Good point. I'm not sure how to incorporate it just yet. It's going to take some careful wording to make sure people know they have the opportunity to ask questions about why certain non-mainstream theories are NOT accepted by mainstream science without leaving the door wide open to all sorts of crazy discussion of non-mainstream theories. I could rewrite to mention something along the lines of (rough wording here), "Discussion of non-mainstream topics for the purpose of understanding why they are not currently accepted scientific theories or models is permitted in the Skepticism and Debunking forum."

However, this depends on whether the admins here want all of those topics in S&D. It might be a good thing to try as it does clearly demarcate those topics as non-mainstream by their placement in that forum. I just wouldn't want to see this suggestion backfire such that it turns into open-season for crackpots in S&D instead of TD.

The easier modification here is addressing the historical context.

Also, are any of these suggestions excluding any of our forums? Have we accounted for Philosophy or Politics for example? I don't want to get so narrow that we exclude appropriate topics, but at the same time, I don't want to be too vague as to be unhelpful and right back where we started.

Okay, let's try it this way:

Guidelines for Acceptable Discussion Topics and Forum Rules
In keeping with our educational mission, PhysicsForums aims to clearly demarcate mainstream from non-mainstream topics in physics and related fields. Examples of "mainstream" topics include those covered in: 1) high school, undergraduate and graduate level physics, math, engineering, or other sciences textbooks, 2) peer-reviewed publications, including journal articles and edited books, and 3) are based on established scientific principles. In addition to education/career guidance and discussion of published works, discussions of hot topics in science, the history of science, and ethical and political issues related to the sciences are welcome. (Tentatively follow with: Discussion of non-mainstream topics for the purpose of understanding why they are not currently accepted scientific theories or models is permitted in the Skepticism and Debunking forum.)

etc.

 

[Moonbear]

Rational maybe, although that's a pretty subjective term?

I don't think that would fly very well to distinguish between rational and irrational topics. We'd have to ban all of GD.

Would directing all non-mainstream topics to S&D make use of that terminology (mainstream vs non-mainstream) acceptable, or do those who raised the initial objections still find it a problem? Keep the comments and suggestions coming; I want these to reflect what PF really is, not just "PF According to Moonbear.

 

[chronon]

The trouble from my point of view is that there are often questions posted of the form 'I've read (in a popular science book), that such-and-such is the case, but it doesn't seem quite right'. My reply is generally, 'No it isn't right, don't always believe what you read in popular science books'. Unfortunately, this makes what I am writing look decidedly non-mainstream, and I often get into arguments with the "Science experts"

Arrogance
The point has been made that it's not so much the posting of non-mainstream theories, it's the arrogance with which people stick to them. But if you really believe in an idea then what else can you do? I know that some people think that they can revolutionize the whole of physics without knowing any, but in the case of Caroline Thompson, she clearly does know enough physics to make a reasonable sounding argument - but people seem to think that this is even worse. People with non-standard ideas have to be arrogant in promoting them, and I think that those hearing them should be less arrogant in rejecting them.

Expertise
I'm sorry that this is going to sound insulting, but PF doesn't have a great amount of expertise in physics (The situation in the Mathematics section is better). In my arguments with the "Science experts" I have found myself wishing that a real expert would come along and set things right. For instance the idea of 'stretching space' in cosmology seems to be thought of as the only way to explain things here, but that doesn't match with what a real expert has to say: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#MX

Maybe the expertise in the physics section will improve, but I don't see this being helped by more aggressive moderation, especially when this moderation can seem somewhat arbitrary.

 

[Garth]

And to my favourite fans of the non-mainstream - Garth, Andre, turbo-1, yogi, and Bystander - what say you?

According to Moonbear's definition:

Guidelines for Acceptable Discussion Topics and Forum Rules
In keeping with our educational mission, PhysicsForums aims to clearly demarcate mainstream from non-mainstream topics in physics and related fields. Examples of "mainstream" topics include those covered in: 1) high school, undergraduate and graduate level physics, math, engineering, or other sciences textbooks, 2) peer-reviewed publications, including journal articles and edited books, and 3) are based on established scientific principles.

SCC is mainstream.

Physics Forums strength is the qualified expertise it keeps on board. This is possible because of a strict monitoring policy. There needs to be a 'crackpot' forum as TD at the moment, but also somewhere else where reasonable alternative theories and ideas may be cashed out and discussed. Either we say SCC, MOND etc. are mainstream as they are published work or, because they are not the consensus view, they have to be discussed in some 'maverick' forum so as not to confuse those who are unaware of their status.

Garth

 

[X-43D]

I've noticed a recent tendency against speculative posts. This seems odd, since this was the main reason I joined PF. For instance Arctic Fox asked what seems to be a reasonable question https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=621169#post621169 only to be told that it isn't worth discussing.

More seriously, users have been banned, where it seems the only reason is that their ideas are non-standard. In particular Caroline Thompson, who tries to highlight the loopholes in experiments demonstrating Bell's inequality. I don't see that this is a reason to be banned. Her posts are accepted by sci.physics.research, and I would expect moderation on PF to be less strict than on SPR. Likewise Eugene Shubert (perfectly innocent) has posts accepted on SPR but has been banned on PF. Is there a good reason for this, or is PF being restricted to 'standard' physics?

Basically anyone who criticizes mainstream physics but isn't a physicist or a mathematician gets banned by the moderators. It happened to several people here before.

 

[ZapperZ]

The point has been made that it's not so much the posting of non-mainstream theories, it's the arrogance with which people stick to them. But if you really believe in an idea then what else can you do? I know that some people think that they can revolutionize the whole of physics without knowing any, but in the case of Caroline Thompson, she clearly does know enough physics to make a reasonable sounding argument - but people seem to think that this is even worse. People with non-standard ideas have to be arrogant in promoting them, and I think that those hearing them should be less arrogant in rejecting them.

I challenge you to give her the whole set of Maxwell Equations, and ask her to derive the wave equation from those WITHOUT resorting to anything else. This is VERY relevant to what she's trying to do because she is ADAMENT that only the wave picture of EM radiation is valid, not photons. Practically every undergraduate physics major has to know how to do what I just asked COLD.

When you can convince yourself that she can, then come back here and tell me that "she clearly does know enough physics". Till then, don't fool yourself by making such a statement.

Expertise
I'm sorry that this is going to sound insulting, but PF doesn't have a great amount of expertise in physics (The situation in the Mathematics section is better). In my arguments with the "Science experts" I have found myself wishing that a real expert would come along and set things right. For instance the idea of 'stretching space' in cosmology seems to be thought of as the only way to explain things here, but that doesn't match with what a real expert has to say: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#MX

But you have just countered your own argument. This is WHY we can't have an anything-goes forum. To be able to have experts in ALL areas of physics is IMPOSSIBLE. You don't get this even at the largest annual physics conferences in the world!

Bring your "non-mainstream" ideas to the relevant conference. Seek the expert in that field, etc... This is how it is done, and it is the most effective way to test one's ideas, NOT on PF, and certainly not on open internet forums. Is this such a novel concept? If it isn't, then I don't see what the complaining is all about?

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

Arrogance
The point has been made that it's not so much the posting of non-mainstream theories, it's the arrogance with which people stick to them.

When I was in 2nd grade, my family moved and I had to change schools. In the first school, I learned to write a lower-case "t" with a straight stem and in the second, they tried to teach me to write it with a curved stem. I flat out refused to change and after a few weeks of battling with my teacher I had to change classes. That's arrogance. Its also immaturity.

But if you really believe in an idea then what else can you do?

From the above anecdote the solution should be obvious: have the maturity to admit to yourself that you are lacking in knowledge and instead of choosing to question those who are trying to teach you, open your mind and learn from them. It really is a simple question of maturity.

 

[Gokul43201]

Arrogance
The point has been made that it's not so much the posting of non-mainstream theories, it's the arrogance with which people stick to them. But if you really believe in an idea then what else can you do?

Take your ideas to a place where they are allowed and will be listened to. PF is not maintained for this purpose.

Ever tried ordering lasagna at a Chinese restaurant ?

 

[Andre]

And to my favourite fans of the non-mainstream - Garth, Andre, turbo-1, yogi, and Bystander - what say you?

Am I a non-mainstream or non-consensus person?

Suppose that PF would like to clearly demarcate mainstream from non-mainstream

So what to do with the question about what constitutes mainstream (The prevailing current of thought, influence, or activity)? It has been raised but you quickly get in trouble:

Allow me to give an example: (don’t click the links if you want to keep it abstract). This is a peer reviewed mainstream article, the author being undisputed and highly qualified. This is also derived from mainstream peer reviewed work with evenly highly qualified authors. Yet, their respective work is totally opposing each other. Notice how the second author tries all kind of -not substantiated- excuses to make it look less controversial. That’s it..err, avoid confrontation. Anyway, we may have a mystery here, my beloved terrain. So you work your way through a few tonnes of peer reviewed likewise material and then inevitably some conclusions emerge after applying some basic scientific method ideas.

So, one of the authors is most definitely wrong while the other most certainly has a point, which, however, may be utterly in conflict with the usual consensus textbooks. So what is non-mainstream and what is non-consensus and what is the truth and what is it worth.

What does PF want? Avoiding this kind of conflict solving or have a nice juicy and detailed thread about the merit of both, with inputs of other critical thinkers that could lead to a much better synthesis?

With that spirit my suggestion for a mission statement for PF would be:

The aim of PF is to promote sound and neutral, unbiased, objective science.

That should be it and each step and rule, should be concurring with that statement. Consequently, you can ban non-scientific-method crackpottery, that’s easy. With regards to my example it quickly becomes clear that (non)-mainstream cannot be dismissed so simply though. Mainstream seem to have no meaning here. “Concurring with scientific methods” sounds much better.

 

[quantumdude]

Unfortunately, this makes what I am writing look decidedly non-mainstream, and I often get into arguments with the "Science experts"

They aren't called "Science experts". They are called "Science Advisors", and there's a reason for the difference. They were indeed originally called "Experts" but then we decided that we wanted to give the awards to people who are very talented graduate students (and in a couple of cases, undergraduates). Since graduate students cannot be considered "experts" we changed the name of the medal.

The point has been made that it's not so much the posting of non-mainstream theories, it's the arrogance with which people stick to them. But if you really believe in an idea then what else can you do?

Easy: You can not be arrogant.

Most laypeople who have a normal, healthy share of humility and who have ideas about physics that differ from the thousands of PhD's who work on it for 40+ hours a week would think, "Well, I must have something wrong here. I wonder what it is?" and then try to find out. I mentioned in the Theory Development thread that a layperson walking into a room full of professional physicists and telling them that they aren't doing their job correctly is every bit as ludicrous as a layperson walking into a room full of airline pilots (or open heart surgeons, or stuntment, or welders, or any other profession that requires great knowledge and skill) and telling them that they don't know how to do their jobs correctly. The only difference is that crackpottery in physics doesn't carry with it the dire consequences that crackpottery in jumbo jet piloting has.

I know that some people think that they can revolutionize the whole of physics without knowing any, but in the case of Caroline Thompson, she clearly does know enough physics to make a reasonable sounding argument - but people seem to think that this is even worse.

She clearly does not have a good handle on basic physics. And even if she did, that would not be nearly enough to warrant a revolution of physics. A person would have to be an expert to do something like that.

Also, her arguements didn't carry all that much force with vanesch or Dr. Chinese, two people who really are experts. What does that tell you?

People with non-standard ideas have to be arrogant in promoting them, and I think that those hearing them should be less arrogant in rejecting them.

People with non-standard ideas at Physics Forums are routinely heard and answered. No arrogance involved, and if you do see it then you should report it.

I'm sorry that this is going to sound insulting, but PF doesn't have a great amount of expertise in physics (The situation in the Mathematics section is better).

I beg to differ. We many have staff members and regular members who hold doctorates in physics (atomic, condensed matter, high energy, among other fields). What we lack (and we freely admit this) is comparable expertise Cosmology and Earth Sciences.

In my arguments with the "Science experts" I have found myself wishing that a real expert would come along and set things right. For instance the idea of 'stretching space' in cosmology seems to be thought of as the only way to explain things here, but that doesn't match with what a real expert has to say: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#MX

If you ever believe that anyone is being unreasonable, hit the "Report Post" button and the staff members will have a look at it. You don't have to let yourself be pushed around by a Science Advisor who is wrong.

Maybe the expertise in the physics section will improve, but I don't see this being helped by more aggressive moderation,

Again, I beg to differ. We are actively working on attracting more experts in our weak areas. And if we are successful, and those experts find an unmoderated free-for-all, they would certainly not stick around. That is why I maintain that your ideas on how PF should be run are a recipe for certain failure. We would not become what we want to become if we were to follow them.

especially when this moderation can seem somewhat arbitrary.

If you cite instances of inconsistent or arbitrary moderation you should report it. Everyone makes mistakes, but we will do our best to correct ours when we make them. If you feel victimized by Mentors or Science Advisors and fail to speak up about specific occurances, then you share part of the responsibility for the way you are treated.

 

[quantumdude]

Basically anyone who criticizes mainstream physics but isn't a physicist or a mathematician gets banned by the moderators. It happened to several people here before.

You are wrong. We ban people for the manner in which their challenges are presented, not for the challenges themselves. And we only do this after reasonable attempts have been made to point out weak points in the challenge.

The fact that members such as yogi and nightlight are still members serve as counterexamples to your claim.

 

[quantumdude]

No, I don't think I'll be staying, and I hope others will follow.

Thanks, Chroot. You're a god.

I honestly don't understand people like you. People who have this "All-or-Nothing" attitude that think that either they should be allowed to use PF for both learning about physics and conducting pseudoscientific research, or they will refuse to use PF at all. Why not use PF for one and not the other? We're really good at teaching people about physics! If you follow through with your statement, you will just be just cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

[Gokul43201]

Again, I beg to differ. We are actively working on attracting more experts in our weak areas. And if we are successful, and those experts find an unmoderated free-for-all, they would certainly not stick around. That is why I maintain that your ideas on how PF should be run are a recipe for certain failure. We would not become what we want to become if we were to follow them.

I can't agree more. The surest way to attract serious scientists is to simply eliminate TD and make no excuse for it.

 

[Moonbear]

The trouble from my point of view is that there are often questions posted of the form 'I've read (in a popular science book), that such-and-such is the case, but it doesn't seem quite right'. My reply is generally, 'No it isn't right, don't always believe what you read in popular science books'. Unfortunately, this makes what I am writing look decidedly non-mainstream, and I often get into arguments with the "Science experts"

Something in a "popular" science book, if incorrect, can be refuted by reference to appropriate peer-reviewed sources. We frequently encounter such things over in the biology forum, indeed, such a question arose this past week, and that is how it was handled. Someone read something on an internet site which was backed up by some popular book, but when we went delving into the literature, there was nothing to support it, and some articles that clearly refuted it. We also quickly de-bunked the credentials the author of the book was claiming. In the process, we gained some knowledge about practical issues in toxicity studies. This was a useful exercise because there are sites all over the internet using that one popular book as the basis for their erroneous claims. However, we didn't just dismiss it out-of-hand, we dug into the relevant literature to determine whether there was any validity to the claim, even if it was outdated studies with conclusions that have been rejected by more current studies, and then to support the arguments against it.

she clearly does know enough physics to make a reasonable sounding argument

Again, I'm not going to respond regarding the specific person you keep bringing up, but to this statement in general. This is exactly what we're trying to keep in check, those who know just barely enough to make a reasonable sounding argument to those who do not know the subject in depth (i.e., students and those without formal scientific education), but that is not reasonable to those who do know the subject. These are the more dangerous posts, because they are not so outlandish to the lay reader as to be obviously wrong, so they need the assistance of those with scientific training to point out why they are wrong.

People with non-standard ideas have to be arrogant in promoting them

No, there is no place for arrogance here. Perseverant is always a good trait, and that means if your idea is rejected one place or you find it's not acceptable for discussion somewhere else, you continue to move along and find the place where people will listen, and you keep refining your argument to make it more convincing if it's not convincing yet. If your theory does have merit and you're not communicating that to others and arrogance is preventing you from admitting you might be doing something wrong or not explaining it adequately or that maybe there is a flaw in it somewhere, then you're just spinning your wheels and wasting everyone's time, including your own.

Maybe the expertise in the physics section will improve, but I don't see this being helped by more aggressive moderation, especially when this moderation can seem somewhat arbitrary.

As has been pointed out by others already, this is an important reason to define what our limits are and to maintain discussion within those limits so we don't lose the ability to sort the wheat from the chaff when the discussion extends beyond the limits of our expertise. This is actually a very good reason why even legitimate, well-grounded new theories would not be appropriately included here until they've passed muster of the peer-review process where appropriate experts have determined it to be a legitimate, well-grounded theory. If someone is having difficulty understanding why their new theories, still under development, should be presented at a scientific conference or to colleagues with expertise in their area rather than on an internet forum that may not have a critical mass of experts in their area, then I have to question their ethics in releasing something to the general public before it has been appropriately modified and verified by other experts. That's simply not responsible science.

 

[Integral]

You may want to read ths thread before continuing the disscussion being held here.

 

[juvenal]

Expertise
I'm sorry that this is going to sound insulting, but PF doesn't have a great amount of expertise in physics (The situation in the Mathematics section is better). In my arguments with the "Science experts" I have found myself wishing that a real expert would come along and set things right. For instance the idea of 'stretching space' in cosmology seems to be thought of as the only way to explain things here, but that doesn't match with what a real expert has to say: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#MX

Maybe the expertise in the physics section will improve, but I don't see this being helped by more aggressive moderation, especially when this moderation can seem somewhat arbitrary.

You need to give an example of an expert, mainstream physicist that was scared off by the so-called heavy-handed moderation of this site. If anything, the fewer crackpots, the more attractive this site becomes to experts and legitimate physicists.

 

[Nereid]

Expertise
I'm sorry that this is going to sound insulting, but PF doesn't have a great amount of expertise in physics (The situation in the Mathematics section is better). In my arguments with the "Science experts" I have found myself wishing that a real expert would come along and set things right. For instance the idea of 'stretching space' in cosmology seems to be thought of as the only way to explain things here, but that doesn't match with what a real expert has to say: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#MX

Thank you for your frank and interesting comments.

Would you be so kind as to let us know which of your post(s) you are referring to here ("For instance the idea of 'stretching space' in cosmology seems to be thought of as the only way to explain things here, but that doesn't match with what a real expert has to say:")?

I looked back over your posts, and the only ones I found that seemed to me to be related were posted in the S&GR section, not the General Astronomy&Cosmology one. Further, the topics were addressed by folk who have clearly demonstrated their understanding of GR, in a manner not inconsistent with what's on Ned Wright's webpage.

I beg to differ. We many have staff members and regular members who hold doctorates in physics (atomic, condensed matter, high energy, among other fields). What we lack (and we freely admit this) is comparable expertise Cosmology and Earth Sciences.

We could certainly do with folk with deep expertise in Earth and planetary sciences, comparable to expertise you reference in various areas of physics Tom.

What we, here in PF, lack in cosmology (and some areas of astrophysics?), IMHO, is clarity on demarcation. As Garth's post made clear, if the publication of many peer-reviewed papers on an internally consistent theory, for which a good case for matching good observational results is made well, constitutes 'mainstream', then MOND and SCC qualify. OTOH, it is widely recognised in the community (including by their own supporters) that both are 'alternative' ... to the concordance model. (For the avoidance of doubt, let us be clear that neither SCC, nor MOND, nor the concordance model is a 'perfect fit' to ALL good observational and experimental results; observational cosmology is a young branch of astrophysics ).

As Integral has noted, PF is in the process of changing its policy re content that is outside the mainstream; perhaps we could continue our discussion there (as Integral suggests)?

 

[chronon]

Thank you for your frank and interesting comments.

Would you be so kind as to let us know which of your post(s) you are referring to here ("For instance the idea of 'stretching space' in cosmology seems to be thought of as the only way to explain things here, but that doesn't match with what a real expert has to say:")?

I looked back over your posts, and the only ones I found that seemed to me to be related were posted in the S&GR section, not the General Astronomy&Cosmology one.

Well OK, maybe it was just in the Where did the energy in the CMB go to? thread that I got into this argument. I said the same things in The thread thread but there it seemed that I was more on the side of orthodoxy. I was away for some of the discussion of the Lineweaver SciAm article, so never got into my stride. But my point isn't claiming that I have been treated badly - I expect to have to argue my points. Rather I'm not happy that people have been criticised for what seems to me to be much the same thing.

I agree 100% that anyone putting forward a non-standard idea will need to have theoretical knowledge to back it up, and that will include understanding the theory that they are trying to disprove. Anything along the lines of 'well I don't understand this theory so it must be wrong' is a sure sign of a crackpot. However, PF doesn't require a theory exam in order to join, and it seems unfair to criticize posters for not demonstrating sufficient theoretical ability.

I stick by my claim that if you have a new idea then you need arrogance to get people to listen to it. Call it perseverence if you will - of course we agree that there is no place for people who become abusive when their ideas are rejected - but perseverence is likely to look like arrogance to other people. As for writing 't' with a straight or curved stem - well the point there is that it doesn't really matter. And you don't argue with a room full of professionals because by its nature professionalism requires consistency rather than continually trying out better ways to do things.

I know that unmoderated forums such as sci.physics quickly fill up with junk, which is why I stay away from such forums. I agree the moderators in PF do a excellent job in keeping the posts reasonable without interfering with the flow of discussions. I'm not arrogant enough to claim that I could do it any better, so I'll shut up now.

 

[Nereid]

Thanks chronon, I hope you stick around.

I stick by my claim that if you have a new idea then you need arrogance to get people to listen to it. Call it perseverence if you will - of course we agree that there is no place for people who become abusive when their ideas are rejected - but perseverence is likely to look like arrogance to other people.

[nitpick]you say 'tomato', i say 'tomato'; 'arrogance' is like beauty (in the eye of the beholder), 'perserverence' is like anger (in your guts).[/nitpick]

That perserverence was a personal quality of great help to many, many people who have made good contributions to physics (and cosmology, and science in general), over the centuries is incontrovertable

Indeed, IIRC, there is debate among those interested in HPS as to the role of 'pig-headedness' in the engine room of science - there are not a few examples of a 'persistent' scientist plugging away on an idea even though it was most certainly 'non-mainstream' (and possibly even 'falsified' by 'good' experimental or observational results) ... and 'emerging victorious'.

The distinction between such heroines (and a few heros too no doubt) and ~99% of what you can read in PF's TD is the recognition (by our heroines) of the need to roll up their sleeves and get on with the hard yakka - doing the OOM calculations, developing the theoretical framework, crunching the numbers, building the equipment and doing the experiments, making quantitative predictions, and so on.

 

[Chronos]

Philosophy of science, Nereid? Well stated. Science is what is left after alternatives are ruled out by the preponderance of evidence.

 

[lethe]

You need to give an example of an expert, mainstream physicist that was scared off by the so-called heavy-handed moderation of this site.

lethe
...

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

lethe
...

Obviously not scared enough to resurrect a 3 month old thread

 

[Lisa!]

lethe
...

But he's going to stay here and teach us differential forms. So welcome back!

 

[quantumdude]

Not likely, because we won't wet poor wittle wethe use curse words here.